We undertook an unannounced inspection on 22 June 2017 of Franklyn Lodge, 58 Kings Road. Franklyn Lodge, 58 Kings Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability. At the time of this inspection, there were four people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 3 December 2014, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of people's likes and dislikes. Care plans were reviewed and were updated when people's needs changed.

Relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal.

We found the premises were clean and tidy. Bedrooms had been personalised with people's belongings to assist people to feel at home.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from management.

Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005).

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The home had made necessary applications for DoLS as it was recognised that there were areas of people’s care in which the person’s liberties were being deprived. Records showed that the relevant authorisations had been granted and were in place.

There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people's dietary needs were met.

Staff were informed of changes occurring within the home through daily handovers and staff meetings. Staff told us that they received up to date information about people and the service, and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns at these meetings.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

We undertook an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2014 of Franklyn Lodge – 58 Kings Road. This service is registered for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service. Three people were able to understand and communicate verbally. One person was able to understand but could not communicate verbally and would use specific gestures which staff were able to understand and recognise.

At our last inspection on 17 October 2013 the service met the regulations inspected.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of our inspection, the registered manager was temporarily not at the home managing the regulated activities. An interim manager was overseeing the service who was joined at the inspection by two senior managers of the provider.

The provider had taken steps to help ensure people were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse because there were clear safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures in place to protect people. Care workers were aware of what action to take if they suspected abuse.

People were not restricted from leaving the home and were encouraged to meet their relatives. We saw evidence that people went out to various activities and people identified as being at risk when going out in the community had risk assessments in place and we saw that if required, they were supported by staff when they went out.

People were cared for by staff that were supported to have the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care workers spoke positively about their experiences working at the home.

Positive caring relationships had developed between people who used the service and staff and people were treated with kindness and compassion. We observed people were very relaxed and were free to come and go as they pleased in the home and were smiling and appeared to be at complete ease.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs and people were consulted and activities reflected people’s individual interests, likes and dislikes.

People’s religious and cultural needs were accommodated, and people were supported to maintain links with the wider community.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. There was an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. We saw there were systems in place for the maintenance of the building and equipment to monitor the safety of the service.

We spoke with two people who used the service. They informed us that staff treated them well and they were happy living in the home. This was reiterated by two relatives who spoke with us by phone. They stated that they had confidence in staff and staff were able to support people and attend to their individual and personal needs.

We observed that people who used the service appeared well cared for and were dressed appropriately. Staff interacted well with people and had encouraged people to engage in various activities they liked. Staff supported people with making choices regarding areas such as activities and meals they wanted. There were arrangements for obtaining consent from either people or their representatives.

People who used the service stated that they had access to healthcare professionals and this was confirmed in care records examined. Assessments, including risk assessments had been carried out. The care provided had been reviewed regularly to ensure that the current needs of people were met. There were suitable arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. People informed us that there were sufficient staff on duty to care for them.

The home had a complaints procedure. People and a relative said they knew who to talk to if they were unhappy with the care provided. The home had a record of compliments received.

At this inspection we spoke with one person who use the service and one relative. We observed that staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. People and a relative who spoke with us stated that the needs of people had been attended to. People told us that they engaged in various activities and had also been on holidays supported by staff. People indicated that they were encouraged to be as independent as possible and assisted in household chores. Their views can be summarised by the following comment, “I feel safe here, they treat me nicely and they take me out. “

Care records indicated that the needs of people had been attended to.The care records contained assessments, care plans and reviews. Details of appointments with healthcare professionals were recorded.

The staff records indicated that staff had been provided with essential training. Staff informed us that they worked well as a team and felt supported by their manager. Staff were aware of the safeguarding policy and procedure aimed at protecting people from abuse and understood their role.

Arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of care provided. People and the relative we spoke with expressed satisfaction with the services provided and indicated that they knew they could talk to the manager if they were unhappy or had complaints.